Suchergebnisse

This paper attempts a critical appraisal of one core debate and theories in economics about the 2008 crisis and post-2008 economic growth and stagnation. In addition to examining formal publications, this essay also examines serious blogs by high-profile economists who are core participants in public discourse over economic policy. Drawing on the general logic of economic sociology and political economy in particular, an appreciation for more complex microfoundations of economic practice (e.g. power and culture) and institutions-this paper addresses three issues about theoretical frameworks and claims about post-crisis growth or lack thereof: 1) Techniques : economists' discourses focus primarily on techniques (policies and the like) available to the state and other actors for shaping economic performance, but at the cost of lack of critical distance. 2) Technologies : economists' discourses generally pay little attention to available institutional tools and techniques for affecting economic performance, which reveals limits to economic theory and theorists, as well as continuing pro-market hegemony in the discipline. 3) Politics : economists do comment on the politics of policy discussions and policies themselves, but politics ultimately remains exogenous to discussions, theory, and models continuing a fatal weakness of economic theory that has been noted for decades. The paper then examines alternative frameworks grounded in political economy and economic sociology that focus on (and make endogenous) institutions, states and elites, logics of capitalism, and power, and concludes with possible propositions from these frameworks regarding crisis and post-crisis economics.

"Economic Sociology provides the clearest and most comprehensive account of the promises of economic sociology. It shows how economies are more than supply-and-demand curves, individual profit motives, and efficient performance: they are forms of power and structure, grounded in institutions and culture. What is calculated, how, and why? Are profit and efficiency always so central to economic structures and outcomes? What shapes change and reproduction in economic practices and policies? How have classes and states, using power and institutions, created and continue to shape the economic world we live in? This second edition presents a critical and sophisticated yet approachable analysis of economic behavior and phenomena. After describing key concepts and logics of economic sociology and of economics (its eternal cousin and competitor), Hass turns the sociologist's analytic eye to the heart of economic practices comparing how they work in the United States, Europe, East Asia, Latin America, and post-socialist Russia and China. The volume addresses crucially important economic issues that touch our well-being and justice: the rise and structuring of capitalism; relations between states and economies; economic policies; economies and inequality; and organizations and corporations. Causes and consequences of globalization and the Great Recession are laid out for the reader. With economics and economic sociology placed side-by-side in this journey of how economies operate in the past and present, the reader gets different perspectives on economic reality. Power and culture, institutions and fields, classes and corporations interact on this historical and global stage. Written in a clear and direct style, this textbook will appeal to students and scholars in economic sociology, sociology of work, economics, social policy, political economy and comparative sociology"--

In this unique contribution to economic sociology, Jeffrey Hass examines the impact of culture, norms and political authority on Russia's post-socialist transition. The interactions and contradictions of moral economies and market relations are examined, exploring the often overlooked social dimension to market-building in Russia

"Utilising cutting-edge theory and unique data, this book examines the role of power, culture, and practice in Russia's story of post-socialist economic change, and provides a framework for addressing general economic change. No other book places power and culture as centrally as this, and in doing so it provides new insights not only into how Russia came to its present state under Putin, but also how economies operate and change generally. In particular, the importance of remaking authority and culture - creating and contesting new categories and narratives of meaning - is shown as central to Russia's story, and to the story of economies overall.Power, Culture and Practices in Russia is an excellent research tool for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students of sociology, political science, economics, area studies, and other related disciplines"--

This book explores the application of field theory (patterns of interaction) to Russian economic history, and how social and political fields mediate the influences of institutions, structures, discourses and ideologies in the creation and dissemination of economic thinking, theory and practice. Using focused cases on Russia's economy from the mid-nineteenth century to the present, Hass and co-authors expand the empirical basis of field studies to provide new material on Russian economic history. The cases are divided into two complementary halves: i) The role of fields of institutions, discourses, and structures in the development of Russian economic thought, especially economic theories and discourses; and ii) The role of fields in the real adoption and implementation of policies in Soviet and Russian economic history. With developed discussion of fields and field theory, this book moves beyond sociology to demonstrate to other disciplines the relation of fields and field theory to other frameworks and methodological considerations for field analysis, as well as providing new empirical insights and narratives not as well-known abroad. ; https://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf/1307/thumbnail.jpg

This paper attempts a critical appraisal of one core debate and theories in economics about the 2008 crisis and post-2008 economic growth and stagnation. In addition to examining formal publications, this essay also examines serious blogs by high-profile economists who are core participants in public discourse over economic policy. Drawing on the general logic of economic sociology and political economy — in particular, an appreciation for more complex microfoundations of economic practice (e.g. power and culture) and institutions—this paper addresses three issues about theoretical frameworks and claims about post-crisis growth or lack thereof: 1) Techniques: economists' discourses focus primarily on techniques (policies and the like) available to the state and other actors for shaping economic performance, but at the cost of lack of critical distance. 2) Technologies: economists' discourses generally pay little attention to available institutional tools and techniques for affecting economic performance, which reveals limits to economic theory and theorists, as well as continuing pro-market hegemony in the discipline. 3) Politics: economists do comment on the politics of policy discussions and policies themselves, but politics ultimately remains exogenous to discussions, theory, and models — continuing a fatal weakness of economic theory that has been noted for decades. The paper then examines alternative frameworks grounded in political economy and economic sociology that focus on (and make endogenous) institutions, states and elites, logics of capitalism, and power, and concludes with possible propositions from these frameworks regarding crisis and post-crisis economics. Abstract (Russian): В статье предпринята попытка критического осмысления дебатов и теорий применитель- но к кризисной экономике 2008 г. и последующих росте и стагнации. Помимо официальных публикаций, в данной статье анализируются также блоги известных экономистов — ключевых участников публичного обсуждения экономической политики. В рамках общей логики экономической социологии и политической экономии, в том числе рассматривая глубинные основы экономической практики (прежде всего, власть и культуру), автор исследует три вопроса о те- оретических основах и свойствах посткризисного роста или отсутствия такового: 1) инстру- менты: дискуссии экономистов сосредоточены прежде всего на имеющихся в распоряжении государства и других субъектов инструментах (политики и т. п.) для воздействия на экономику в ущерб критическому подходу; 2) методы: в спорах вокруг экономики обычно недостаточно внимания уделяется институциональным инструментам и методам воздействия на экономику, что ограничивает применение экономических теорий и мнений ученых, а также способствует доминированию про-рыночного направления в экономической науке; 3) политика: экономисты комментируют политику при обсуждении инструментов экономического регулирования, а так- же сами инструменты; при этом политика всегда остается некой данностью (endogenous) в дис- куссиях, в теории и в моделях, порождая фатальную слабость экономической теории, что видно на протяжении десятилетий. В этой связи в статье анализируется альтернативная парадигма, основанная на политиче- ской экономии и экономической социологии, предметом которых являются (и таким образом становятся эндогенными) институты, государства и элиты, логика капитализма и власти. В за- ключительной части статьи в рамках данной парадигмы даны предложения, касающиеся кри- зисной и посткризисной экономики.

Occasionally an academic term becomes a meme in broader media and popular discourse. Among such terms are "stagflation", "globalization", and the concept that this chapter and volume addresses: "sustainable development". Like many other such terms, this concept implies an important subject and broad outlines of research programs and policy initiatives. Yet while provoking consideration of important and often uneasy issues, such a term can also mystify or deflects attention from other related issues. Given the clear evidence of global warming trends and the costs of environmental degradation, the eventuality of peak oil and increasing demand for increasingly scarce fossil fuels (temporarily delayed through the recent recession and discovery of Marcellus Shale deposits of natural gas), and the increasing appeal of more radical ideologies to the losers of globalization (which is starting to include the American and European middle classes), then making sense of environmentally and socially sustainable development is one of the most important issues of our day and years to come. The alternative is the risk of authoritarian politics and military adventure to guarantee control over scarce resources and to control popular outrage over inequality and unmet expectations. Because space limitations make impossible a thorough overview of scholarship and popular discourse related to this totem, this essay has more modest goals: to provide a suggestive (and likely contentious) overview of the nature of this concept and its scholarship, and to provide some critical (and likely contentious) comments regarding how this concept has developed and how scholars (especially economists) have treated it. I focus on social science discourse and the social and political dimensions of sustainable development policies (or lack there of), First, scholarship in the natural sciences is sufficiently technical and often bordering or beyond the boundaries of my own competence. As well, the technical side to debates in the natural sciences about sustainable development is more objective, relative to discourse in the social science and the public sphere and to political decision-making1. Second, the politics of sustainable development policies has dynamics that I could disentangle only in a book-length manuscript, although I will briefly refer to the more general tendencies in the policies of various countries and global institutions. Further, social science discourse is linked to political interests and ideologies, even if indirectly; for example, scholars in the tradition of mainstream economics have vested personal, professional, and likely ideological interests in demonstrating that (relatively) free markets are an optimal way to organize economic activity, and that parsimony of mathematically oriented economic theory, with its reliance on utility maximization and instrumental rationality, remains uncluttered with such complicating variables as environmental costs (externalities), political pluralism and deliberation over "social justice,' and the like.

Beneath the seeming chaos and conflict of Russia's post-socialist experience were structured dynamics of contentious reconstruction of fields (collective relations of power and culture institutionalized as authority and definitions of "normal"). This essay argues that the Russian experience was driven in no small part by contention over remaking core meanings and authority of field relations, practices, and boundaries. Contention over field reconstruction emerged as three groups' interests and taken-for granted meanings of normality collided: those of Soviet-era managers, a new class of financial entrepreneurs and elites, and state elites and officials. Post-socialism has been a story of competing elite culture as well as interests.

Thus, one goal of this book is to challenge and expand our understandings of post-Soviet transformations by tapping theories so far underutilized (if used at all) in analyses. I will draw on various sources of data--original primary-source data as well as secondary data from various disciplines and accounts--to map out a theoretical landscape.One important goal is to rethink how to look at these data. I want to look deeper into social dynamics of institutional change. ; https://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf/1210/thumbnail.jpg

Utilising cutting-edge theory and unique data, this book examines the role of power, culture, and practice in Russia's story of post-socialist economic change, and provides a framework for addressing general economic change. No other book places power and culture as centrally as this, and in doing so it provides new insights not only into how Russia came to its present state under Putin, but also how economies operate and change generally. In particular, the importance of remaking authority and culture -- creating and contesting new categories and narratives of meaning -- is shown as central to Russia's story, and to the story of economies overall. Power, Culture and Economic Change in Russia is an excellent research tool for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students of sociology, political science, economics, area studies, and other related disciplines. ; https://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf/1208/thumbnail.jpg

In this essay I use the example of the Blockade of Leningrad - an extreme example of the Soviet experience of World War II, and an extreme example of the experience of war generally - to address two issues. The first is a more general, theoretical issue: the importance of war to the construction of political and social normality and practices. Political science and sociology have examined the impact of war on structures and institutions, such as states or gender roles and relations; but the impact of war on meanings and meaning systems is addressed only empirically, often without much theoretical reflection. The second issue is how World War II shaped the specific meaning systems, cosmologics, and assumptions and normal practice among Soviet citizens - put another way, how the war impacted on Soviet habitus. Given its radical, extreme nature, the Blockade experience should go far to illuminating these issues - and a study of the Blockade can also liberate those voices and experiences kept in the quiet for too long, ironically in the name of Soviet authority and the stable rule of the Communist Party.

A landlocked nation, Belarus is located in central-eastern Europe, with Poland and Russia on the western and eastern borders, Ukraine to the south, and Latvia and Lithuania to the north. The climate is between continental and maritime, with cold winters and cool summers. Much of the terrain is flat, and there are several square kilometers of marshland. Much of southern Belarus was contaminated by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986; while Ukraine was host to the disaster, the radioactive fallout harmed Belarusian territory worse than Ukrainian land, contaminating more than 20 percent of Belarusian land and leading to, at one count, approximately 400,000 cancer deaths.

Formally Lithuania is a republic. The national government is composed of three branches-executive, legislative, and judiciary. Lithuania has a stronger presidency than the other Baltic countries and is referred to as a "presidential democracy" that has come to resemble the French system, where the president presides over policymaking and the parliament (Seimas) is weakened by divisions between several parties and factions; however, this strength may be illusory for institutional reasons.

Located in east-central Europe, Poland comprises an area of nearly 313,000 square kilometers (about the size of New Mexico). Borders with Germany on the west and Belarus and Russia on the east give Poland notable geopolitical significance. In addition, its flat topography, with no defensible geographical features, has made Poland a prime area for conflict, as the country not only lies between historically powerful nations but also has served as an unwilling conduit for forces between Russia and Germany.